Tuesday, April 30, 2013

I guess people depending on where they are philosophically have different views about what Americans are entitled to. From all the way on the far-left let's call Socialists let's call them believe that all Americans are entitled to a good productive life. With no worries perhaps not even responsibilities for themselves. And are always entitled to a good job, good income. A good home, good healthcare, good health insurance, a good pension and so fourth things that people need to live well. Then you go all the way over to the right towards Libertarians and all they believe that Americans are entitled to is freedom. And what we do with that is up to us for good or bad and then you go to the far-right let's call them Neoconservatives and all. They believe Americans are entitled to is physical security even at the expense of freedom and even securing us from ourselves. Then you go to the center-right and they believe that the more freedom that the private-sector has and more choice that individuals have. The more freedom that Americans will have to live their own lives, that you do not have to privatize everything like. Libertarians tend to believe but that individuals should have as much choice as possible.

As Liberal I only believe that Americans are only entitled to a few things as it relates to the economy. The opportunity to get ourselves the skills that we need to be successful in life and live with individual-freedom. Both economic and personal-freedom, the ability if we need it to collect social-insurance if for whatever reason or reasons. We aren't able to take care for ourselves that we can have as we are working our way back to becoming free again. We are entitled to work and live in a safe environment where criminals aren't in charge. And where we are safe at work with safe working conditions. We are entitled to the right to organize as workers if we choose to but that it shouldn't be forced on us. And that's really it all we need is the freedom to be able to live in freedom and if we do not have that freedom because. We aren't able to live in freedom because we lack the skills to be able to take care of ourselves. Then we need to be able to get ourselves the skills that we need to live in freedom.

The ability to live in freedom is the only thing that Americans are entitled to but it's also the only thing that people need. We do not need government trying to do things for us that we can't do for ourselves but we do need government to the things that we can't do for ourselves. Big government is too much but we can also have too little of government with not enough things getting done. And people going without services that we need to live in freedom. So what we need to do is limit government to only doing the things that we need it to do which is to protect our freedom.

I've blogged a lot in the past about Liberalism and Conservatism and whose a real Liberal and whose a real Conservative. And how they actually have a lot more in common then the borader Left and Right-wings tend to want to admit. But marijuana and the broader War on Drugs is a perfect example similar to same sex marriage where they actually have things in common. Why is that because both of these issues are no longer partisan because Liberals and Conservatives are now in favor of marijuana-legalization. And legalizing same sex marriage as well, one of the reasons why roughly half of the country or more are now in favor of these things. And why the War on Drugs is so unpopular especially amongst younger Americans. Who know Gay people or are friends with them or know people who use marijuana or use it themselves. Or know a victim in the War on Drugs, someone whose been involved in the criminal-justice system as a result.

You put all of the Liberals and Conservatives together in the country. And the real things not the big government types of both sides, you are talking about fifty percent of the country roughly. But it's not just Liberals and Conservatives who are in favor of it and you still have Prohibitionists on both wings. Who are against it but those number sare getting stronger because education and commonsense are now starting to come through. And people are now learning what the so called War on Drugs is about and who pays for it and what doesn't get funded as a result. And we are now seeing Federalists emerge from both sides on this issue people who are saying look my state disagrees with you on the War on Drugs. And we are done paying for it and are telling Uncle Sam to butt out and mind your own business. And worry about narcotics coming into the country from places that are more dangerous then the drugs. Produced in this country instead of whether a patient uses medical-marijuana or smokes a joint from time to time.

As I've said this is not Left-Right but commonsense versus the status quo. And as more Americans are learning about marijuana-prohibition in this country and that we are all paying a heavy price for it one. Way or the other, the War on Drugs loses more popularity and the opposition grows against it.

Saturday, April 27, 2013

If we were really serious about reducing poverty and government dependence as it relates to the economy, people would be making more money working than not working. And people who are not retired, or physically or mentally disabled, would make less money in cash payments, than people who are working. Even if they are low-income workers. Because we would have laws in place that prevent the unemployed who are on Welfare Insurance from making more money than people who are working and collecting cash payments. And they would still get the public assistance that they need to survive like. Food Assistance, public housing, Medicaid to use as examples. But they would receive less in direct income than someone whose working full-time whatever they are making. Instead of having this policy that basically says, “look, you are barely surviving at all on your own right now. How about you quit your job and get on Welfare where you could make more money.” Which is what we’ve been doing since the New Deal and what we should do instead is incentivizing people to work over not working.

You want more people working and fewer people not working and collecting from public assistance, then work simply has to pay more than not working. And work has to pay enough so people prefer to work. So instead of having a minimum wage for workers, you would apply that to the unemployed on Welfare. Where they would make what someone working full-time making 7.25$ an hour would make. But low-income workers would make 10$ an hour working full-time. And still collect the public assistance that they would be eligible for with their income. But also eligible for financial assistance for eduction and job training. So they can get themselves better skills and leave their low-skilled low-income job for a good job. That allows for them to leave public assistance for the middle-class. And someone whose on Welfare, but in an education or job training program is now making 8.25$ and hour. While they are preparing themselves to go to work. Instead of 7.25$ an hour that the person on Welfare whose not in education or job training currently.

A low-income worker now making at least the living-wage at 10$ an hour is still working, but also eligible for financial assistance to go to school, or to a job-training program. So they can improve their skills and get a good job. That gets them off of public assistance all together and into the middle-class. Because now we are incentivizing work and independence over dependence. And a difference between what a welfare state is, or an entitlement society, compared with an empowerment society, that empowers people to be able to take care of themselves.

It's not that we have a Federal health insurance program for the poor that's the problem. But how it's run primarily it's financing because it was never setup to pay for itself or to be financially affordable. The idea was here's this health insurance program that's free for the people who are on it. Now you meaning the states, doctors and hospitals go figure out to pay for it and what the doctors and hospitals have said. Is that's not good enough that we need to be compensated for the healthcare that we deliver to finance our. Clinics and hospitals and bills and when Medicaid only covers 17% of the bills that their patients have. The clinics and doctors tell them that we can't help you because can't afford to. Medicare and Medicaid were set up the same year in 1965, the difference being that Medicare was setup with a direct. Revenue source an increase in the payroll tax, Medicaid should've been setup with a direct revenue source of it's own. Instead of the Feds saying that we'll cover some of it and the states have to figure out the rest on their own.

So the first solution for Medicaid would be to make it self-financed paid for by it's customers. Low-income workers and their employers, with the workers being eligible for a tax-credit to cover those costs. At the end of the year and the Feds increasing payments for people on Welfare and Unemployment Insurance to pay for their Medicaid as well. So take these costs off of the states and have the Feds chip in more for Medicaid by law and another option would be. To allow not force Medicaid patients to use the money they get from Medicaid to pay for their employers health insurance plan. And we would see less people on Medicaid in the future especially as the economy continues to grow. And then the third option would be to what's called in Washington, block-grant Medicaid to the states. For them to run their own Medicaid program under a few conditions. That everyone in their state eligible for Medicaid would be allowed to take Medicaid and that their Medicare revenue could only be used for Medicaid.

The concept of what Medicaid is about is sound and a good idea but it was never really setup to be run very well. And as a result a lot of it's patients do not get the healthcare that they are eligible for because the hospitals and clinics. Won't take them because of how low Medicaid reimbursement is and this is something that be can be fixed fairly easily. The Federal Government steps up with money and get's out of the way.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

The New York Cosmos were also a North American Soccer League team that played at Giants Stadium in the 1970s and 80. And I believe the people who owned the Cosmos of the NASL and MISL were the same group. And they moved their NASL franchise indoors to arena soccer and the MISL when the NASL folded in I believe 1984. The Cleveland Force are one of the standout franchises of American arena soccer. Also known as the Cleveland Crunch of the old NPSL that I believe folded and reemerged as the new MISL in the late 1990s or so. Cleveland and New York/New Jersey are great soccer markets, including arena soccer. And why the MISL has never been marketed better and perhaps set up a partnership with MLS so they would be much bigger today, I may never know. But it is a great sport and just needs a great league to promote it.

If the so called War on Drugs were really about public-health in America. And preventing people from using narcotics in the first place and getting users of of narcotics. Then you would think the policy would be about preventing narcotics from getting into the country in the first place and that's all. Narcotics not just legal-narcotics like tobacco, alcohol, prescription-drugs, steroids and you could also look at caffeine. And sugar I mean if you really want to have a War on Drugs that are bad for people in this country. Most drugs that aren't used for medical purposes would be illegal and probably most of the country would either be in. Prison or breaking the law and government deciding that fifty million people in prison or whatever it might. Be is too much and we simply can't prosecute and incarcerate everybody. Hell government would have to prosecute and incarcerate their own drug-warriors because we as a nation all use drugs that aren't. Good for us but this is not what this is about. This is about politics and the tobacco, alcohol, sugar and prescription-drugs industries not wanting real competition from. Marijuana and other illegal-narcotics.

If the so called War on Drugs were really about prevention and public-health. Then we wouldn't be as a country locking up people and sending them away where they can get more illegal-narcotics. What is one of the biggest security issues for our jails and prisons, illegal-narcotics as well as legal-narcotics. I mean seriously if this were a real War on Drugs which I'm against and wouldn't be my approach to. Narcotics in America legal or otherwise, we would do whatever we needed to do and keep those narcotics from. Getting into the United States in the first place and for all of our users and narcotics, they would be in drug-rehab getting off of those narcotics. And moving on with their lives outside of the criminal-justice system. But thats not what this is about, this is about big government knowing best what drugs we should be allowed to have in America. And what drugs we shouldn't have based on what they and their political backers have decided is okay.

If you want a real War on Drugs and like I said I don't want a real or fake War on Drugs. But if you are going to have one, do it right and get people off of drugs and out of jail and prison and stop drugs from. Entering the country in the first place.

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

One thing that was great about the CFL American experience in the early and mid 1990s was that we got to see a North American Football Championship game. Not once, but twice in 1994 and 95. The Stallions lost to the Vancouver Lions (as I call them) in 1994 and then beat the Calgary Stampeders in 1995. Baltimore, being one of the premier American football markets and now with one of the premier franchises and premier histories as well. Calgary, being one of the premier Canadian football markets, franchises and has one of the best football histories in Canada. The Stallions and Stampeders, were clearly the two best teams in the CFL in 1995. And both had a host of players that either played in the NFL, or went on to play in the NFL.

The CFL American experience didn’t fail because of lack of quality talent on the American teams. But because outside of Baltimore the franchises weren’t run and marketed very well. And outside of Baltimore there wasn’t a CFL American market that badly wanted in to or back into the NFL. Baltimore loved the Stallions, but they also used the Stallions to get another NFL club. To show the NFL how much they wanted another NFL club by the way they supported the Stallions. And as a result Baltimore is the only city in the world actually, that has won the NFL Championship, including multiple Super Bowls, the USFL Championship and the CFL Grey Cup Championship.

The CFL American experiment, was a good idea that was poorly executed. And if the USFL ever comes back, they should look at the CFL as a possible merger. With lets say ten American clubs that are all outside of NFL markets. With 9-10 CFL clubs and play a couple inter-conference or inter-league games for each club in this new league. So fans in both countries can see how they play against each other. Play in the spring and summer, instead of the fall and winter. So they’re not going up against the NFL. Get a player agreement with the NFL so they can have access to NFL players who are talented, but aren’t playing much right now. Because they are not ready and need experience. And get a revenue sharing agreement as well. And this new Can-Am league I believe would do very well both in America and Canada.

I like the Right on Crime approach as Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist call it. That if you are a Conservative one of the principles of Conservatism is to judge the results of investments that you. Make in government at tax payers expense and corrections and prisons are a government operation. So since thats the case that we want to have corrections systems that are the most effective and affordable. Possible instead of judging prisons and law enforcement by how many people we arrest every year and how many people are part of the criminal-justice system. We judge it by who needs to be there and what prisons are for and how we finance them and what we are getting form the money that we spend. If there's a good thing thats come from the Great Recession and the slow economic and job-growth since. Its that its forced governments to reexamine how they spend tax payer funds and forcing them to look for savings. Wherever possible instead of judging law-enforcement and criminal-justice based on how much we spend on it.

The best way to save money on our criminal-justice system is to look at how we treat nonviolent-offenders who do not represent a major threat to the economy. And how we treat inmates that we need to have in prison, who are violent-offenders and how we treat our mentally-ill inmates and get them in. The institutions where they need to be and not in prison. So for example we shouldn't be sending nonviolent-offenders who do not represent a major threat to the economy to prison in the first place. Especially drug-offenders users primarily and get these people in private drug-rehab clinics and halfway-houses instead at their. Expense and our nonviolent-offenders who aren't drug-offenders and again aren't major threats to the economy. Shoplifters to use as an example, have them to their time in county-jail and get them in halfway-houses at their expense. Where they can be covering their living-expenses.

The reason why we have so many people in prison, is because of the War on Drugs and how we treat nonviolent-offenders. Who aren't drug-offenders, as well as all of the inmates who endup back in prison after being released. These are the inmates that we should be targeting and make sure they are where they need to be and are prepared for life on the outside before they are released.

Monday, April 22, 2013

I going to focus on Libertarianism and Socialism in this blog two philosophies that I'm familiar with.

They are both very diverse political philosophies and take libertarianism to use as an example. Where the basic idea of libertarianism is that you combine personal with economic freedom as long as individuals aren't hurting innocent people with what they are doing. But that government is there to protect us from invaders, terrorists and criminals. Thats the basic idea of libertarianism. But then there's also anarcho-libertarianism, which is borderline anarchism if not anarchism all together. Where Anarcho-Libertarians basically have no role for government in society. And are even interested in privatizing things like prisons, fire departments and law enforcement to use as examples.

Socialism, another diverse political philosophy where you have Socialist-Libertarians like Noam Chomsky. Socialist-Liberals like Ralph Nader and people with this philosophy believe in personal freedom like Libertarians, but that government needs to be there to sure that economic wealth is distributed equally in society and where no one is rich, or poor. But then there are Socialists who are statist across the board and not only want to prevent people from becoming what they would call too wealthy and not poor at all.

But that government also has a role to protect people from getting hurt and even protecting us from ourselves. And making bad decisions with their own lives. Like prohibition, which is definitely a progressive idea. The whole junk food and soft drinks ban, the War on Drugs to use as examples, are all progressive ideas. And people like this I would call Progressive-Socialists, or Progressive-Paternalists. People who are socialist on economic policy, but also Statist on some key personal choice issues.

Progressive-Paternalists, want to use government to control what people can eat, drink and smoke to use as examples. You also have Marxists-Socialists, people who believe in eliminating capitalism and the private sector all together. Where the government would own the economy all around on behalf of the people. And then you have Socialists who believe in both capitalism, but that is highly regulated and taxed to finance a large welfare state. So with Libertarians we would get a lot less government in society. And with Socialists a lot more government especially as it relates to the economy.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

The whole purpose of the United States Constitution, is to layout what are the powers and responsibilities of the Federal Government. As well as how the Federal Government interacts with state and local governments and what are the powers of the people as well. What freedom the people in the country have and what is our relationship with the government and what authority does government have to represent us in a civilize society.

Which is how we establish rule of law and what makes us a. Constitutional Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. Without a constitution, we wouldn’t have limited-government and rule of law. Because government in theory anyway, would have unlimited power to either represent us, or use over us. Which is why the Constitution is so critical so government knows what powers and responsibilities it has. But also to protect the people from unlimited government and authoritarian rule.

This show was done in 1962-63. Some time around then when the Kennedy Administration, had a broad economic agenda built around on building the safety net in America. Which was part of Jack Kennedy’s Great Frontier agenda. And part of that had to do with expanding affordable housing, medical insurance for senior, citizens, as well as the working poor and low-income Americans in general. As well as an across the board tax cut to deal with an economy that was growing slowly. And Federal aid to education.

What Dan Smoot and other Conservatives and people who would be called Conservatives Libertarians today, such as Senator Barry Goldwater, is that the U.S. Constitution, did not grant the Federal Government all of this power. They argued that the New Deal in the 1930s, was unconstitutional. The Federal Highway System of the 1950s and every new Federal social insurance program like the Great Society of the 1960s, are all unconstitutional. Which is why I say Dan Smoot, is one of the first Tea Party leaders. But from the 1950s and 1960s. Because they make similar arguments today and perhaps use Mr. Smoot as one of their inspirational leaders.Camp Constitution: Dan Smoot Report

Friday, April 19, 2013

Its a little hard to read an article about Pro-Choice from the American Thinker which is basically represents Neoconservative and religious-right thinking. And has argued in the past that personal-freedom and freedom of choice are dangerous because it allows for people to make bad decisions. Which has been their argument in the past but Daniel Payne makes a good case here when he says that Progressives have a. Tendency to argue for Pro-Choice and just leave it when it comes to abortion. But things like the War on Drugs or prohibition which are Progressive ideas seem to have nothing to do. With Pro-Choice and personal-freedom but protecting society as a whole even from the people themselves which is true. As a Liberal I'm Pro-Choice but just not when to comes to reproductive-rights but across the board. As long as someone's choices aren't hurting innocent people. I draw the line when it involves how people interact with each other and that both sides need to consent before someone can. Do something to the other.

If you want to know my full position when it comes to abortion. I'm 98-99% Pro-Choice and draw the line when it comes to public-financing of abortions except in the areas of rape, incest, life or health of. The mother that women who've voluntarily decided to get pregnant by agreeing to have sex with a man the father of the baby. Have a right to end that abortion but that since they decided to get pregnant, they are now responsible for seeing the fetus to birth or not. And should have to take care of it on their own. That they have a right to abortion but not the right to force others to pay for it unless they were forced to get. Pregnant and that's where I draw the line on abortion but personal-choice in general. As far as I'm concern all free adults in America have the right to make their own choices in life as long as they aren't. Hurting others with their decision making and I apply that to all issues as a Liberal, not a Progressive. Progressives who tend to believe in prohibiting things by law that aren't healthy for us.

Not to pat myself on the back but you could use the gun-rights debate or the War on Drugs when it comes to personal-choice in America. Towards Progressives or Social-Democrats lets call them who tend to believe that government has a role to protect people even from themselves. But I'm a real Liberal someone who truly believes in personal-freedom and has a healthy skepticism about. Governmental power unlike Progressives and Neoconservatives and that argument simply won't fly with me.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

I was actually talking about this with a very good friend of mine on the phone last week. And I was arguing that President Franklin Roosevelt was overrated as a President and was not the. Liberal that he tends to get credit for because on things like civil-liberties and civil-rights. Things he didn't see to either care about or not willing to do anything about to protect those things for all Americans period. Including for African-Americans but all Americans in general. African-Americans were getting lynched by the Ku Klux Klan and perhaps other Anglo racist groups. Even though Liberals in Congress were calling for laws to outlaw lynching, President Roosevelt didn't support that. And then you get to civil-liberties and constitutional-rights where German, Italian and Japanese Americans were being locked. Up during World War II simply because of their ethnicity because the Roosevelt Administration feared that. German, Italian and Japanese Americans were sympathetic to the Germany, Italy and Japan during World War II. Clearly Unconstitutional and bigoted but thats what the policy of the Roosevelt Administration was.

Then you get to the economy where pre World War II the American economy was still in very bad shape. Whether it was growing or not with roughly 1-5 Americans still out of work. Its really World War II that moved the economy past the Great Depression and back to good economic health. What the New Deal did was prevent the economy from getting worst. It in a lot of ways saved American-Capitalism and prevented us from starting to nationalize industries and so fourth. Something FDR never wanted to do but what he wanted to do was to build a modern infrastructure system for. America and to create what is the modern safety-net in America which as big as it was at the time and even today. Is still pretty small compared with Europe, so if you are a big believer in individualism and economic-freedom. America is still a great place to be and somewhere where you should want to live.

Most of the credit I give FDR as President has to do with foreign-policy. By successfully leading us through World War II where we saved all of those European-Jews from an. Ethnic-genocide and to help create what is the National Security State to deal with Communism and. Other Authoritarian ideologies and states and moving the United States from an Isolationist country on foreign-policy to a Liberal-Internationalist country. Where we've been for the most part ever since. But other then that FDR's Liberal credentials are pretty weak.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

A lot of Americans today when asked what do they think of Liberalism as far as what it is. Will probably say that its about high taxes and a big centralize Federal-state to take care of everyone perhaps because. They believe these so called Liberals do not trust individuals and the states to spend their money wisely. And that we need the Federal Government to be very large and have a lot of revenue to have a just society as possible. So no one is left behind and have true social-justice and equality in America. As a Liberal myself there's nothing Liberal in that message and looks like something that would come from a. Social-Democratic party in Europe or the New Democratic Party in Canada which is a Social-Democratic party. Parties that look a lot more Socialist or Progressive then they do Liberal and these are just different things. Others when they think of Liberals probably think of MSNBC and its lineup of hosts and guests. Other then maybe Chris Matthews, again as a real Liberal I do not see a real Liberal on that entire network. And I do not watch MSNBC to find out what Liberals are thinking because I do not see and Liberals thinking on. That network and find myself disagreeing with MSNBC more often then I agree with them.

From time to time I do watch MSNBC to see what Social-Democrats in America or Socialists even are thinking and saying. Because that's who MSBC speaks for, they represent the Far-Left in America. And have more in common with the Green Party or the Democratic Socialist Party then they do with the. Democratic Party which is official Liberal Party in America. With a Socialist flank that are Democrats so they can have a major voice in a Leftist party. Progressivism or Democratic-Socialism is about the state to put it frankly and they tend to put society and the state in the same box as if they are the same thing. So when they say we need a society to do such, such and such, what they are really saying is that they. Want the Federal Government to do these things because thats what their philosophy is built around. Except for Socialists in Vermont who have a healthy skepticism about Federal-power and want the ability to provide their own public programs.

Now to get to what Liberalism actually is and why I'm a Liberal. Liberalism is about the individual and about freedom. Protecting the individuals right to have the freedom to make their own decisions as it relates to both economic and personal decisions. Rather then government thinking that freedom and choice is dangerous and we need to outlaw certain personal choices so people do not make bad. Decisions which would be bad for society which is what we get from the Far-Left and Far-Right in America. Liberals aren't antigovernment as todays Libertarians tend to be but we are also not pro- government as todays Progressives tend to be. What we have is a healthy skepticism about government at all levels but especially at the Federal-level. As far as what government can do for the people better then what individuals can do for themselves. Which is why we need government to be limited to only doing the things that we need it to do that individuals can't do for themselves or as well.

Liberals believe that its the job of government to protect the country from people who would do us harm. Intentionally or otherwise but not try to protect us from ourselves, which is different. Basically protecting individuals from criminals and foreign-invaders not try to prevent people from making decisions that. Some in the country might seem as dangerous, which again is different. And that government can even help the disadvantage in society are aren't able to take care of themselves. But it should be done in a way that empowers people to be independent and not dependent. On government indefinitely for their well being.

Monday, April 15, 2013

I can see why ABC Sports and the USFL would want New Jersey and Los Angeles for their week 1 matchup on ABC. The biggest markets in America in Los Angeles and New York/North Jersey. And try to get a big week one TV rating from this game. And maybe they did, but the New Jersey Generals were 6-12 in 83 and were much better in 84 and 85, but they were a bad team in 83, at least as far as what they showed. And the Los Angeles Express were 8-10 a mediocre team that again were better in 84 and 85.

I think what is rememberable about this game is that it was Generals running back Herschel Walker’s first professional football game. No question the best college running back in 1982 and instead of playing in the NFL, he ends up in the USFL because he lost his college eligibility for speaking to pro agents too soon. Either a bad rule or big mistake on Herschel’s part. Because had Herschel played his whole career in the NFL, we are talking about a guaranteed first ballot hall of famer. But that is how good the USFL was as far as the talent that they had and the players they brought in.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

The Ali-Frazier of the American civil rights movement and what made this debate inside the African-American civil rights movement so interesting was how different the personalities of Martin King and Malcolm X were. And their different strategies and tactics in accomplishing what they wanted which was freedom, civil rights the constitutional rights to be enforced equally under law for African-Americans.

Martin King played the numbers game so to speak. Knowing that African-Americans only represented around ten percent of the population at this point. Knew that he would need the support of others in the country to accomplish his goals. Including like-minded Caucasian-Americans, as well as Jewish-Americans and Latino-Americans. In order to build the movement to pass the laws he was in favor of. Malcolm X took a more unrealistic approach which was that “we are here and want what is already entitled to us. Which is our freedom and since the Caucasians are in charge, they should simply just give our freedom to us.”

Dr. King had the approach that brought about the civil rights laws of the 1960s and all of those victories. But Malcolm X had a better post-civil rights movement approach for how to fix the African-American community going forward. Which was about individual freedom based through education, economic expansion, for the African-Americans to have the resources to build their communities and run their own business’s. Whereas Dr. King had more of a government centric, pubic assistance approach. That government should just give poor people money and take care of them.

The overall message of Libertarianism is sound to me as a Liberal. That its not the job of government to protect me from myself and me being anyone not me selfishly. Me is also any adult not currently incarcerated if you want to get really technical. And perhaps thinking that I might think that nine year olds should be allowed to drive or fathers should be allowed to. Marry their fifteen year old daughters or sons if you want to take this really far. That government shouldn't try to run our lives economically or personally or try to run the world. Either when it comes to the military or foreign-policy and all of these things Liberals tend to agree with as well, no seriously. Its when so called Libertarians as I would put it, people who I call Anarcho-Libertarians. That think that stoplights or street signs, or denying their kids healthcare or something. That somehow is violating one's freedom to be forced to stop and look both ways before entering an intersection. Or making their kids where seatbelt's that somehow violates an individuals freedom that I have a problem with.

Imagine if Anarcho-Libertarians ruled the world meaning America, which of course is the whole world if you are an American. No more street signs, no more seat belts, no more food inspectors. So imagine a world like this a Libertarian-Utopia. If Joe goes through an intersection without looking or stopping and gets plowed into by Bob coming from the other direction doing the same. Thing and they are both seriously injured. Well the Libertarian answer to that would've been Bob and Joe should've been paying attention. And assuming they are ever able to physically walk let alone drive again, they'll know to look before crossing in the future. When we could've saved those two men from serious harm but putting up street signs. Because most people tend to obey laws whether they agree with them or not. But a lot of people don't tend to do things they don't want to do until they are forced into doing them.

Or imagine of Tom and Susan went to a restaurant and of course we no longer have food inspectors. And they both get food poisoning from eating spoiled roast beef or whatever the meal is. Now they know not to go back to Dick's Steakhouse because they do not inspect their meat properly. When we could've save that couple a night in the emergency room by just getting the meat inspected properly. And saved our healthcare-system some money as a result. Its not the job of government to protect us from ourselves. Which is what I believe as a Liberal and not tell me what I can eat and do to my own body and how I can spend my own money. But it is the job of government to regulate the business's that I deal with so certain unnecessary harm doesn't. Come down on me that I couldn't of prevented from happening myself. Which is what separates Liberals and even Conservatives from Anarcho-Libertarians.

Again Libertarianism as far as how individuals should be able to live their own lives as long. As they aren't hurting innocent people with what they are doing is sound and I believe in that. But what today's Anarcho-Libertarians seem to forget in that is long as we aren't hurting innocent people with what we are doing. That there shouldn't be some official authority that deals with that. Because the person who hurt the innocent person shouldn't have to pay a consequence for hurting that person. Because that somehow violates their freedom or something. Really the freedom to do what, hurt innocent people. Where in the U.S. Constitution do we have the right to do that.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

This might be hard to believe for anyone who believes that Conservatism is about Ann Coulter or Rick Santorum. And Libertarianism is about Lew Rockwell or Ron Paul but the fact is Libertarians and Conservatives have a lot more in common with each other then people tend to think. Its the religious or Neoconservatives, Theocrats and secular-Statists on the right-wing that represent the Far-Right in. America that do not have much in common with Libertarianism because there philosophy is not about freedom and. Choice and letting people live their own lives but that governments job is to prevent people even by force from making bad choices as they see them. And when everyone is living a moral or American way of life as they see it, thats not about choice and freedom but what they see as. Traditional- values, then thats a truly free America where Americans are protected from making decisions that aren't. In there's or the national interest lets say.

You put Barry Goldwater Sr. or his son Barry Goldwater Jr. in the same room with Ron Paul. They'll probably find a lot that they agree on and would probably differ when it came to foreign-policy. But that they would agree that Americans should have the freedom of choice to live their own lives as long as. Long as they aren't hurting innocent people with what they are doing. Senator Goldwater even believed in the right to organize for workers as long as they weren't forced to organize. So if you had a Republican Party that was primarily Conservative, made up of Conservatives and Libertarians even. Conservative in the Conservative-Libertarian standpoint and not Statist or Theocratic. The Republican Party would do very well because people would see that this is a real Republican Party and not a. Theocratic Party trying to run our lives for us.

Its the Christian-Theocrats and Neoconservatives who are really right-wing Statists who believe its the job of government to protect the people. Even from themselves at times that look at Conservative-Libertarians and classical-Libertarians as Liberals. Because they do not understand political-Conservatism and what limited-government is about thats different from Libertarianism. That don't fit in very well with the Libertarians.

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Not the approach I would take on the War on Drugs, I would just end it all together and stop arresting people. Who are in possession of are on what are illegal narcotics today and get the addicts into drug-rehab at their expense. Without any criminal-record or anything added to it if they successfully complete the program. And stop arresting people and invading their homes for simple possession of what are illegal narcotics in America today. I would start with legalizing marijuana at the Federal level, states would still be able to prohibit it if they want to. But Uncle Sam would no longer enforce antimarijuana-laws and decriminalize heroin, cocaine and meth. As the Senator said we've spent a lot of money on the War on Drugs in America and we still have a lot of illegal drugs in America. And if you are a Liberal such as myself you are suppose to go where the evidence takes you and the evidence of this bogus War on Drugs is pretty clear. Its not working probably has never worked and we are in trillions of dollars in the hole on it.

So judging by the evidence, its pretty clear that we need to change course not in the War on Drugs. But when you've already lost a so called war and you are still fighting it because you are not ready to admit you lost. Its sorta like trying to play a football game after you've lost 52-0. What's the point move one with your life and onto something else. Trying to reform a lost so called war is not the answer, the War on Drugs is a failure and we need to end it. And have a different policy when it comes to narcotics in America and stop arresting people and giving. Them criminal-records and ruining their lives for what they do to themselves and only worry about people hurting innocent people instead. And as a result we would have a much safer country with more people in prison who actually need to be there. And more productive people in the free-world who otherwise would be in prison.

Senator Paul's policy is more of a decriminalization approach even as it relates to marijuana. And yes thats a step in the right direction and I give him credit for that but we need to go much further then that. And not reform how we fight the bogus War on Drugs but end it all together.

The easy reason for why Margaret Thatcher couldn't win the GOP nomination for President today. Is because in America she would be a Northeastern-Republican similar to Olympia Snowe. Or more of a Conservative-Libertarian to Rand Paul at least on social-issues and the Christian-Rights and. Neoconservatives would never back someone with Conservative-Libertarian leanings who didn't push the social-issues. The religious-right agenda who believed in social-freedom as much as Maggie Thatcher did. But thats just the social-issues, Maggie Thatcher wasn't a Socialist obviously but didn't seek out to destroy Socialism either. And believed that government needed to do certain things as it related to the economy. Especially in the area of education but she also believed in the U.K. National Health Service and never tried to privatize or eliminate it. Maggie Thatcher was a Conservative but a Conservative in a much more Socialist country then America and perhaps even Canada as well and was. Conservative by British-standards and less by American-standards.

Margaret Thatcher's Conservatism was a British-Conservatism which is different from an American-Conservatism. And she wasn't antigovernment but anti big-government but from a British perspective and didn't want government trying to take care of people who otherwise could do that for themselves. Perhaps just needed an education and job-training to be able to do that and actually was to the left of me politically. On healthcare believing in socialized-healthcare with the public healthcare-system in Britain. Even though she was a Conservative in Britain and you would think that would be an issue that she. And I would agree on since she's a Conservative. But she was a real Conservative in the American or British sense that she believed in individual-freedom and didn't want government interfering with how. People lived their lives for the most part. And believed in things like fiscal-responsibility and paying for government expenses and a strong military. But had more Progressive leanings on economic-policy then most Republicans in America.

For Margaret to succeed in America as a Republican, it would've had to be in the Northeast or out West and she probably couldn't be in favor of. Socialized-healthcare in America to be successful as a Republican anywhere but she was not as strong as a Conservative as Republicans like to make her out. To be and was a lot more practical then Republicans tend to like to admit.

Monday, April 8, 2013

This is the perfect debate to have because what is integration worth if it doesn’t come with freedom. You could have different races and ethnicities integrated in the same community, city, state or even country. But if one race of people or one ethnicity of people doesn’t have the same freedom and constitutional rights under law as another and can be fired and denied the right to vote, or live in a home or speak out in public simply because of their race, then what is integration worth for the people who do not have freedom.

Malcolm X wasn’t interested in integration at all and simply not integration at the sake of integration. But he was interested in freedom for an entire race of people who had been denied it for their entire existence in North America. Since the time they were African slaves to Europeans in the British colonies and then later the United States, to post Civil War where they were denied the same freedom as European-Americans as officially American citizens and free people.

Saturday, April 6, 2013

This interview was very important because Malcolm X was being interviewed about one of the key aspects that he preached about during his movement. Which was African-American identity and what it means to be an American of African descent. The term African-American became popular or mainstream in America in the early 1990s. Before that Americans of African descent were called Black or Negro by non-racists as well as African-Americans themselves.

But the term African-American or Afro-American was actually introduced in America by Malcolm X and his movement in the early 1960s. Which is the term I use to talk about or describe Americans of African descent. Because Black along with White or Brown or Olive are colors and not races. A race is a group of people who originally come from a certain part of the world. Made up of similar ethnicities that of course aren’t the same, but share similar characteristics. Like Asian or African, European, Middle Eastern to use as examples. But colors are a way to describe one’s complexion and not race. At least that’s how I look at it.

Friday, April 5, 2013

I’m going from first impressions here after seeing this debate for the first time tonight. But this debate sounds like to me anyway as a debate representing the main two wings of the American civil rights movement of the 1960s. The lets call it the ‘Black Power’ movement, represented by Malcolm X who I believe is the founding member of the movement who had all the intellect and knowledge to lead a movement like this. Because he knew African-American history very well and what was the state of this community back in the 1960s.

And I believed Malcolm X knew exactly what the community needed and what direction it should be moving in, which was freedom. He wasn’t calling for an expanded welfare state to take care of the African-American community. But he was calling for the same basic freedom that Caucasian-Americans had which was the ability to live their own lives and not be discriminated against based on race. And have the same access to education, healthcare, economic development that Caucasians already had.

Thats one side of the civil rights movement in America that of course was represented by Minister X. The other side led by Dr. Martin L. King of course was more inclusive and realistic. And Dr. King again another brilliant man with superior intellect who knew African-American history very well. And what millions of Africans in America were living through and were fighting for similar things. But against this is where the realism of Dr. King was so brilliant because it was very simple.

A numbers game that was going to have to be overcome for African-Americans to have the same freedom under law. As Caucasians and the numbers game was very simple, its called 4-1. His community was outnumbered 4-1 by Caucasians and other communities as a total and knew that for his movement to accomplish what they wanted, they were simply going to have to have more support and bring in other Americans outside of the community to work with them. Which is why he brought in Anglos, Jews, Latinos and other Americans and this faction was represented by Bayard Rustin at this debate.

As I blogged last night and the reason why I’m writing this blog tonight is that one of the comments on last night’s blog. Was a suggestion to check this video out as well. But as I blogged last night, MLK’s movement of civil rights and freedom through non-violence was the path to get to the civil rights laws of the 1960s. But Malcolm X represented the post-civil rights movement of now. “Since we have this freedom under law this is what we should do with it”. Which was about empowerment, education and economic development, and not about the welfare state.

I'll give Dennis Kucinich some credit. Not because not at least what's called in Europe a Social Democrat, or Democratic Socialist and what I call in America those things. Or at best a Social-Liberal. Someone who is very liberal on social issues. Meaning he believes in a high deal of personal freedom. But very progressive-socialist on economic policy and believes in having a big centralized unitarian even big government involved in the economy. But he's someone who believes that its the job of government to take care of everyone. And I believe he and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg would disagree on a lot of these social issues as they deal with marijuana, pornography and the soft drink and junk food bans.

Dennis Kucinich is more of a Socialist-Libertarian or a Socialist Liberal. Someone whose liberal-libertarian on social issues. Dovish on foreign policy and national security where Socialists tend to be. And socialist on economic policy. So he's not someone who believes that its the job of government to run our lives and protect us from ourselves. But more there to do what he and other Social Democrats lets say, do not think that we can do for ourselves, or do as well. Sort of like a European Social Democrat, but probably more liberal on social issues. Where I give credit to the former U.S. Representative, who was redistricted out of office by his own state legislature, is his consistency and beliefs in a high deal of personal freedom.

I've always seen, or at least since Representative Kucinich ran for president in 2004, as someone who was a Green Democrat. Someone who ideologically should be in the Green Party, or Democratic Socialist Party, but ran as a Democrat simply so he could get elected and reelected to public office. And that even though he tends to have serious policy disagreements with Democrats and the Democratic Leadership, but tends to share the party's goals. Not much different from lets say a Michelle Bachmann in the Republican Party. Who represents their Far-Right, but if she tried to run for office in a Far-Right third-party, would've had a hard time getting elected to dog catcher. Let alone to the U.S. House of Representatives. Where she was elected to and reelected three times. Unfortunately for the people she was supposed to represent in Minnesota.

Follow Me On Facebook

Ederik Schneider Online

FRS FreeState Now on Google+

About Me

I'm a full-time blogger about everything that I'm interested in. Mainly about current affairs, news, politics and history. But I think like most people I'm interested in a lot of different things. I kind of like to know what is going on around and everything that is important and interesting. Instead of spending my a lot of my free time trying to find out everything that is going on in the world of sports. Or who is the latest hot pop culture celebrity and why that person is in jail, or who they're current seeing and so-forth.

I like to know what is going on in sports. What are the good movies that are coming out and if people I like and respect will be in them. But I also want to know about what is going on in government and politics. Since we all have to pay for that whether we like it, or not. And it affects all of us whether we like that, or not. I want to know about everything that is important and interesting. Especially if it is interesting and one of the reasons I love being a blogger is that I get officially weigh in on things that I'm interested in and knowledgeable about.

I don't consider myself to be an expert on anything. But I'm knowledgable about everything that I comment on and blog about. Comes with being interested in a whole wide-range of subjects. And watching a lot of news sports and otherwise, as well as reading about those things. And watching a lot of documentaries. And another thing about being a blogger is that you hear how knowledgeable you're public thinks you are. Which I welcome, just as long as the public keeps their comments professional, respectful and on subject.